On the Interpretation of the Age Distribution of Star Clusters in the Small Magellanic Cloud

TL;DR

This study re-examines the age distribution of star clusters in the Small Magellanic Cloud, revealing that observational biases and evolutionary fading, rather than dissolution, primarily shape the observed distribution.

Contribution

It demonstrates that the apparent decline in cluster numbers with age is due to detection biases and fading, challenging previous claims of rapid cluster dissolution.

Findings

The age distribution follows a power-law with index ~-0.7 for ages <3 Gyr.

Incompleteness and fading explain the observed decline in cluster numbers.

No strong evidence for early cluster dissolution or infant mortality in the SMC.

Abstract

We re-analyze the age distribution (dN/dt) of star clusters in the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) using age determinations based on the Magellanic Cloud Photometric Survey. For ages younger than 3x10^9 yr the dN/dt distribution can be approximated by a power-law distribution, dN/dt propto t^-beta, with -beta=-0.70+/-0.05 or -beta=-0.84+/-0.04, depending on the model used to derive the ages. Predictions for a cluster population without dissolution limited by a V-band detection result in a power-law dN/dt distribution with an index of ~-0.7. This is because the limiting cluster mass increases with age, due to evolutionary fading of clusters, reducing the number of observed clusters at old ages. When a mass cut well above the limiting cluster mass is applied, the dN/dt distribution is flat up to 1 Gyr. We conclude that cluster dissolution is of small importance in shaping the dN/dt distribution and incompleteness causes dN/dt to decline. The reason that no (mass independent) infant mortality of star clusters in the first ~10-20 Myr is found is explained by a detection bias towards clusters without nebular emission, i.e. cluster that have survived the infant mortality phase. The reason we find no evidence for tidal (mass dependent) cluster dissolution in the first Gyr is explained by the weak tidal field of the SMC. Our results are in sharp contrast to the interpretation of Chandar et al. (2006), who interpret the declining dN/dt distribution as rapid cluster dissolution. This is due to their erroneous assumption that the sample is limited by cluster mass, rather than luminosity.